A few days ago I posted some thoughts on recent attempts of government bodies to force social change on the people of this country. In that post I mentioned in passing that President Franklin Roosevelt used to spend large amounts of the taxpayers’ money on propaganda in support of his administration.
Someone posted a comment asking for more detail on Roosevelt’s programs, and I’m happy to oblige.
“Moderation is OK, in moderation.” Ronald Reagan
As the presidential primaries roll on we here the usual debate about what gives a Republican presidential candidate “electability.” One school of thought is that a more moderate candidate gives the party its best chance of winning in a nationwide general election. Another school of thought is that a principled conservative, like Reagan, can attract more voters through the power of his obvious convictions.
If history is any guide, nominating a squishy moderate might be the wrong thing not only for the Republican Party, but for the nation as a whole.
President Obama’s recent flip-flop on “super-PAC” funding was so dramatic that even his supporters are commenting on it. MSNBC’s analysis is that “last night’s announcement looks hypocritical no matter how you try and rationalize it.”
Hypocritical as it might be, the President’s duplicity on the issue of super-pac funding shouldn’t surprise anyone who studies the history of this country, or any democracy, for that matter. Politicians make promises for political reasons, and when the time comes to keep or break the promise, that decision is made politically too.